About the title, I'm putting this on organisation because they could just have given everyone numbers, like 0-3000 for men, 3000-6000 for women idk how many people were in, or even asked for people's ID to check their gender (any problem relative to nonconformity, they'd have had sooner or later anyways) but nah, cutting someone's flow and letting her have burnt her energy for nothing seemed like the best thing to do.
Oh jeez, to the point of injuries...
Also I don't blame you for thinking it was me, that happened in the exact "sub-region" in which I live. But my town the most "exotic" Your de France sign I've seen is a "<3 Giroud pound my ass <3" on the side of the road.
(And you're playing with my mind efficiently with those links, well done)
I think she's referring as to how for a long while women who did stuff better than men had to either stop (there were laws put in place to ensure women wouldn't access the highest forms of art for instance) or get their work stolen (Lise Meitner's work that led to the discovery of nuclear fission and was published under her colleague's Hahn's name is just an example). As for today's world, things are better but she might be referring to how non-leader qualities are more pushed on girls, or how corporate structures are still very male-dominated.
I've just posted it because I was amazed at the "let's stop all women" troll-like move from the race organisers.
That's not life....That's specific incidences that could be handled better.
"Life is like a bucket. You fill it with all the things you want but at the end it's all poured out and emptied at the end."
That's a metaphor for life. This post just looks like lazily covered feminism.
I'm sorry, but laws that specifically exclude half of the population from certain things are more than specific incidences. Statistics on corporate structures are also by definition generalities. I would also say that enough incidences draw patterns; saying "life is like a box of chocolates, you never know what you're going to get" is also a metaphor, despite not working all of the time.
Anyways, I was just trying to explain her position. I don't agree nor disagree with it, as I don't care much about whether or not a very poorly organised Belgian race is actually emblematic for life.
Life encompasses more then a set of laws put in place in a specific country at a specific time. As for the "male dominated board room" in my time doing business with leaders of companies they don't care about gender. They care about results. If a man does something better then a woman as a CEO then that man did something better then that woman. In my industry 90% of companies are run by men. The one business ran by a woman is a disaster. Is it because she's a woman? No it's because she's a terrible business person. Not a single person out of dozens of businesses, hundreds of thousands of customers, thinks it's because she's a woman. It's because she sucks. Life is simple. People complicate it.
Corporate structures being dominated by men is primarily a result of biology. Dr Peterson worked as a clinical psychologist for many smart, conscientious, talented women in high end law firms. These women are earning maybe $300,000+. The firms wanted to keep them; they were their best assets in many ways. Women are hypergamous (a cross cultural phenomenon, so again it's primarily biological) so their partners are already earning equal or more. When these women reach ~30 they go part-time/retire to raise kids. High end lawyers often work 60+ hours a week
Of course. Yet when a lot of countries have had laws like this for centuries, it shapes cultural norms to a non negligible extent. I'm going to make a weirdish comparison: people by and large today don't give a shit about impressionism, yet this movement has shaped the way we appreciate the variations of light in a day in the Western world and its influence is still visible today.
Caring about results and not gender is also logical. (and to be clear I'd never say people should be hired based on gender, obviously, not in one way, not in another). However, 90-10 is a huge disbalance compared to the women/men ratio in the population and one can wonder why things are this way. And a lot of sexist effects are somewhat insidious, if you take the specific field of childcare, men have trouble finding a job here because of the image of the child rapist, and yet the employment policy isn't officially "no man will work here", and men don't inherently suck in this domain.
I hadn't seen the previous comment. Child care is also something that's debated as cultural or not; it is hard to quantify, but some studies have found that women feel pressured to quit their jobs to take care of kids because their partners won't and (once again, doesn't count as a stat and I know this) I've talked with enough women in this situation to wonder if it is.
Harvard business review published a study about the gender divide at top level. They pointed out that statistically, companies with an equal number of women at the top perform (over time) better than those dominated by men. They also found that male leaders were hired when things were going well and often female leaders were hired when things were already failing, then blamed for the failure.
They also published a study that showed when hiring based on a specific skill (in this case playing a musical instrument) when the interviewer didn’t know if the candidate was male or female, women were selected more frequently (by a statically significant amount).
They refer to the phenomenon as implicit bias. Most people don’t think that they are selecting based on gender, they truly believe they are selecting the best person for the job. In the Case of board and C-suite, the ripple effect of men be more likely to be promoted makes the candidate pool of women very small—further compounding the issue.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/sport/cycling/tour-de-france-crash-woman-arrested-b1875544.html%3famp
For a second I was convinced it was you
Also I don't blame you for thinking it was me, that happened in the exact "sub-region" in which I live. But my town the most "exotic" Your de France sign I've seen is a "<3 Giroud pound my ass <3" on the side of the road.
(And you're playing with my mind efficiently with those links, well done)
I've just posted it because I was amazed at the "let's stop all women" troll-like move from the race organisers.
"Life is like a bucket. You fill it with all the things you want but at the end it's all poured out and emptied at the end."
That's a metaphor for life. This post just looks like lazily covered feminism.
Anyways, I was just trying to explain her position. I don't agree nor disagree with it, as I don't care much about whether or not a very poorly organised Belgian race is actually emblematic for life.
Caring about results and not gender is also logical. (and to be clear I'd never say people should be hired based on gender, obviously, not in one way, not in another). However, 90-10 is a huge disbalance compared to the women/men ratio in the population and one can wonder why things are this way. And a lot of sexist effects are somewhat insidious, if you take the specific field of childcare, men have trouble finding a job here because of the image of the child rapist, and yet the employment policy isn't officially "no man will work here", and men don't inherently suck in this domain.
They also published a study that showed when hiring based on a specific skill (in this case playing a musical instrument) when the interviewer didn’t know if the candidate was male or female, women were selected more frequently (by a statically significant amount).